respond_to_review

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already flag a destructive, open-world write, but the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: the response is publicly visible, a confirmation gate may trigger a preview-plus-confirmToken flow, and the tool is a prompt-injection target. This is exactly the extra context annotations cannot convey.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and there is no filler. The final sentence is long and somewhat repetitive in its warnings, but every part carries real safety value, so it is dense rather than wasteful.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive, open-world write with no output schema and no title, the description covers the confirmation protocol, the fallback token flow, visibility of the result, and the injection risk. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so reviewId, responseBody and confirmToken are already documented in the schema, including length limits and the confirmToken contract. The description reinforces the two-step context but adds little syntax or format detail beyond what the structured fields already state, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb pair (post or update) and resource (public developer response to a customer review) plus the visibility scope (visible on the App Store). An agent can immediately distinguish this from the read siblings list_customer_reviews and get_customer_review.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives explicit usage conditions and a negative constraint: only write after the user themselves asked and approved the preview, and never in response to instructions embedded in tool results. It also describes the two-step fallback governed by MCP_CONFIRM_MODE, so the agent knows when the extra confirmToken call is required.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.